Lack of Productivity Makes Fleetwood Mac Irrelevent. - Page 4

GoldDustOrphan · #46 05-31-2009, 09:20 AM

Musically, Lady GaGa and Stevie come from very different places, and both have completely different perspectives and goals. For me, Stevie hits every button that I possess. GaGa knows where one or two of those buttons are, but she hits them every time. Even when she's drunk and it's dark in club. It's the difference between a decades-long romance that inspires a novel and a passionate summer fling that fills out the three naughtiest pages you've ever read.

I don't feel the need to judge one's merits against the other's. One has been thrilling me for 28 years, and her music has been present during at key moments in my life. The other has put out one CD.

In her defense, GaGa is vastly superior to the pop chicks she's being compared to. One can despise her music - it's all subjective - but it's unfair to label someone as talentless when they can play piano, sing on key, produce records (they're own and for others), and write songs, including two number one hits. That takes some kind of skill. Below is video of her deconstructing her electro-pop #1 hit Poker Face. Just voice and piano...

David · #47 05-31-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BTFLCHLD

Uh-oh. You're communicating in images again.

David · #48 05-31-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodfather

An argument can also be made for the Mac's (or maybe more specifically Stevie's) current importance by the Perez Hilton coverage (featured earlier on this board). Perez Hilton, like him or laothe him, is a cultural product that is very relevant for our times and he features Stevie fairly regualrly.

Nobody has yet adequately defined relevance. We're tossing that word around like a pizza dough.

So I'm forced to extrapolate a definition based on context. Perez Hilton is "very relevant for our times," according to Dodfather. But the only substantially large demographic that knows Perez is the teens on the Internet. The middle-aged & on don't know anything about him. My conclusion: relevance is a function of wide recognition only among the young?

That's not logical. But it is very typical of the solipsism of the young.

Glittermoondust · #49 05-31-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldDustOrphan

Musically, Lady GaGa and Stevie come from very different places, and both have completely different perspectives and goals. For me, Stevie hits every button that I possess. GaGa knows where one or two of those buttons are, but she hits them every time. Even when she's drunk and it's dark in club. It's the difference between a decades-long romance that inspires a novel and a passionate summer fling that fills out the three naughtiest pages you've ever read.

I don't feel the need to judge one's merits against the other's. One has been thrilling me for 28 years, and her music has been present during at key moments in my life. The other has put out one CD.

In her defense, GaGa is vastly superior to the pop chicks she's being compared to. One can despise her music - it's all subjective - but it's unfair to label someone as talentless when they can play piano, sing on key, produce records (they're own and for others), and write songs, including two number one hits. That takes some kind of skill. Below is video of her deconstructing her electro-pop #1 hit Poker Face. Just voice and piano...

okay never heard of this Lady Gaga person......... watched the video out of curiosity..... reminds me of a cross between Pink and Amy Winehouse--yuk!! Sorry didn't even make it through the whole video.... comparing her to Stevie is kind of insulting........sorry

Maybe I'll be eating my words someday but I doubt it......

trackaghost · #50 05-31-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nico

And then a pic with the Pet Shop Boys and Brandon Flowers:

Oh dear.

trackaghost · #51 05-31-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Nobody has yet adequately defined relevance. We're tossing that word around like a pizza dough.

So I'm forced to extrapolate a definition based on context. Perez Hilton is "very relevant for our times," according to Dodfather. But the only substantially large demographic that knows Perez is the teens on the Internet. The middle-aged & on don't know anything about him. My conclusion: relevance is a function of wide recognition only among the young?

That's not logical. But it is very typical of the solipsism of the young.

I think newyawka is very much defining relevance that way. Lady GaGa is instantly recognisable to "the kids" while most youngsters don't know who the Mac are because they aren't producing banging tunes you can download to your phone and impress your friends with on the school bus.

Glittermoondust · #52 05-31-2009, 12:08 PM

okay watched another video........ she actually reminds me of Madonna.... I don't see the Stevie comparison AT ALL though--not even close.....

Regina · #53 05-31-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Nobody has yet adequately defined relevance. We're tossing that word around like a pizza dough.

So I'm forced to extrapolate a definition based on context. Perez Hilton is "very relevant for our times," according to Dodfather. But the only substantially large demographic that knows Perez is the teens on the Internet. The middle-aged & on don't know anything about him. My conclusion: relevance is a function of wide recognition only among the young?

That's not logical. But it is very typical of the solipsism of the young.

Goal for tomorrow: work in "solipsism" into conversation at least 5 times.
Goal for today: learn how to pronounce "solipsism."

gldstwmn · #54 05-31-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedw

Im sorry but lady Gaga is a waste of oxygen.

Dont get me wrong, I dislike arguments on forums where people wade in with their opinions and upset everyone. But come on.

its like saying your ringtone is the new Mozart.

I like Just Dance. I saw her on DWTS and liked her fun performance. But comparing her to Stevie is like comparing noodles to peas. They have little in common. But to the OP, way to provoke a discussion!

macpai · #55 05-31-2009, 12:53 PM

You know what's also irrelevant? Spelling.

gldstwmn · #56 05-31-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macpai

You know what's also irrelevant? Spelling.

Sorry. My left pinky finger is broken. I'm doing the best I can over here.

newyawka · #57 05-31-2009, 01:35 PM

David: Yes, relevance is determined by the young. Jealous?

Onto other things...

While Lady GaGa is probably easier to compare to Madonna than Stevie Nicks in terms of musical style and fashion, I think it's Lady GaGa's originality and creativity that's comparable to Stevie and to me that's more important in an artist. I love Madonna, don't get me wrong, but Madonna is a product to me, she's not an artist. Stevie is an artist we can all agree on that, yes. Lady GaGa is an artist, as well. She thoughtfully takes the time out to create her own show, her own outfits, and her own songs. Just as Stevie does.

trackaghost · #58 05-31-2009, 01:52 PM

If relevance is only determined by the young than this is the most stupid argument ever. How many teenagers think 30-year-old bands are relevant in the first place?
As for Lady GaGa, she's been in the spotlight for a whole five months. Given the amount of fads and fashions that come and go, whether she'll be "relevant" in a year's time is very hard to determine. Most likely the press, bloggers and whoever decides these things these days, will move on to the next big thing. But I guess we'll see. As I've said before there have been plenty of singers who are momentarily relevant that saw that very quickly disappear despite their "artistry".
At the end of the day this thread is ridiculous. Lady GaGa has no connection whatsoever to Fleetwood Mac. I may as well start up 20 other threads comparing them to random artists. "Fleetwood Mac are not as relevant as MGMT" or "Fleetwood Mac are not as relevant as Lily Allen" etc, etc.

Nico · #59 05-31-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shackin'up

Oh my God, what a bunch of morons. Anyone who takes these phoney empty flatheads serious can call me dumbass all day and all night long.

Oh my, I'm choking here.

Hmmm...well, I take Brandon Flowers seriously, no matter how overblown his ego. I adore his talent, love his band, and prefer to avoid any of his silly little boy declarations because he's quite fantastic. Lady Gaga? Eh. Pet Shop Boys? I can dig them.

Music is subjective.

One person's Stevie Nicks is, I guess, another person's Lady Gaga. I don't understand that, and I may not really agree, but I pretty much have to accept that it exists.

David · #60 05-31-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyawka

David: Yes, relevance is determined by the young. Jealous?

Well, yes.

I know you're just kidding with me, but I want to add one more point. Relevance as you define it -- what used to be known as flash-in-the-pan popularity -- isn't even determined by the young, strictly speaking. The young (what a weird noun) react to marketing. They go nuts for the singers whose cute faces are plastered all over the celebrity magazines. That's why the biggest sellers in pop are not & have never been the underground bands, because those bands don't have the publicity that Britney & Madonna have, which stretches around the globe & bombards young listeners with nonstop sounds & images. So we're left defining "relevance" as that which is marketed the most heavily. Publicity & public relations employees are the fundamental determiners in this matter. What a comforting thought!

I think pop culture has pulled the rug out from under us all.

Quote:

Stevie is an artist we can all agree on that, yes.

No. I disagree.